Pair wise Issues

[wakester2468]

While I don't claim to be an expert on Pairwise calculations, I do question how conference strength carries so much weight in rankings. It may seem that
I am only looking at this from a Cornell perspective but it affects other teams too. I'm not saying conference strength shouldn't matter but when a team
specifically St Cloud who has 14 losses, overall is one game over .500 and is under .500 in their own conference with 10 losses is ranked 12th, a little too much emphasis is placed on the league itself. From tie to time the committee tweaks the criteria and might want to take a look at this since almost every year the selection committee is in 100% agreement with Pairwise.

[Trotsky]

when a team specifically St Cloud who has 14 losses, overall is one game over .500 and is under .500 in their own conference with 10 losses is ranked 12th, a little too much emphasis is placed on the league itself.

What is your objective criteria for saying that indicates too much emphasis?  The math actually has a pretty good theoretical justification, and it is possible for SOS to punish a deserving team.  As reductio ad absurdum let's imagine an independent who plays only teams in the top 10 all season.  If they wound up a shade under .500 that would suggest they fully deserved to be in the top 10 themselves.

[wakester2468]

What makes elynah a site to enjoy following regularly is the ability to express differing points of view.
We obviously disagree and I'm fine with that and enjoy expressing my opinion without reservation. You only gain knowledge by what you learn from others along the way.  Politicians would be wise to do the same.

[Beeeej]

What makes elynah a site to enjoy following regularly is the ability to express differing points of view.
We obviously disagree and I'm fine with that and enjoy expressing my opinion without reservation. You only gain knowledge by what you learn from others along the way.  Politicians would be wise to do the same.

...and yet you offer no suggestions as to why your "differing point of view" is valid in light of Trotsky's quite apt example. Why wouldn't his reductio ad absurdum example make sense, and if it does, how does it differ substantially enough from St. Cloud's current circumstances that their mathematical ranking is objectively wrong?

[Jim Hyla]

What makes elynah a site to enjoy following regularly is the ability to express differing points of view.
We obviously disagree and I'm fine with that and enjoy expressing my opinion without reservation. You only gain knowledge by what you learn from others along the way.  Politicians would be wise to do the same.

...and yet you offer no suggestions as to why your "differing point of view" is valid in light of Trotsky's quite apt example. Why wouldn't his reductio ad absurdum example make sense, and if it does, how does it differ substantially enough from St. Cloud's current circumstances that their mathematical ranking is objectively wrong?

I think he disagrees subjectively, so you're not going to get evidence. That's okay, he did nicely say that he didn't like the system. Nothing wrong with that.

[Beeeej]

What makes elynah a site to enjoy following regularly is the ability to express differing points of view.
We obviously disagree and I'm fine with that and enjoy expressing my opinion without reservation. You only gain knowledge by what you learn from others along the way.  Politicians would be wise to do the same.

...and yet you offer no suggestions as to why your "differing point of view" is valid in light of Trotsky's quite apt example. Why wouldn't his reductio ad absurdum example make sense, and if it does, how does it differ substantially enough from St. Cloud's current circumstances that their mathematical ranking is objectively wrong?

I think he disagrees subjectively, so you're not going to get evidence. That's okay, he did nicely say that he didn't like the system. Nothing wrong with that.

*shrug*

[wakester2468]

In actuality, I agree with both of you. My opinion certainly was subjective but I do have an opinion on how the ranking system could be changed.
The NCAA football selection committee incorporates both statistical and a subjective human factor. Until November 1st, the only rankings which frankly
don't mean much are the polls. Thereafter, weekly the committee meets weekly to establish a top 20 list until the last games are over and the final 4
are selected.  While conference strength is a factor, it isn't necessarily the end all. A team with two losses in the strongest conference while potentially being one of the top four doesn't get a birth. Thus, record does matter. While this might be too much for college hockey to undertake, something similar
could be undertaken. Another difference between the two sports is there is no factor for how teams are performing down the stretch or how injuries impact
the viability of a team in the tournament. I would prefer to see on February 1st, the beginning of ratings. While it's not the same with automatic bids granted to all conferences, the at large teams need personalized analysis along with the metrics.
So you asked and here is what I think is a reasonable alternative.

[CU2007]

The selection committee doesn't actually have to follow the pairwise, right? So presumably they could boot St. Cloud out if they are a .500 team but they are something like 14th in the PWR?

[Jim Hyla]

In actuality, I agree with both of you. My opinion certainly was subjective but I do have an opinion on how the ranking system could be changed.
The NCAA football selection committee incorporates both statistical and a subjective human factor. Until November 1st, the only rankings which frankly
don't mean much are the polls. Thereafter, weekly the committee meets weekly to establish a top 20 list until the last games are over and the final 4
are selected.  While conference strength is a factor, it isn't necessarily the end all. A team with two losses in the strongest conference while potentially being one of the top four doesn't get a birth. Thus, record does matter. While this might be too much for college hockey to undertake, something similar
could be undertaken. Another difference between the two sports is there is no factor for how teams are performing down the stretch or how injuries impact
the viability of a team in the tournament. I would prefer to see on February 1st, the beginning of ratings. While it's not the same with automatic bids granted to all conferences, the at large teams need personalized analysis along with the metrics.
So you asked and here is what I think is a reasonable alternative.

The problem that most of us will have with something like this, is that it's too subjective, whereas PWR is basically known to all and based on the numbers.

No system, will satisfy everyone.

[wakester2468]

Ok last word on this, at least for now, NCAA basketball might actually be a better example to use. It is similar in that there are automatic bids
to all D1 conferences and then the committee selects the remaining teams. They use many criteria but ultimately they are not locked into them. Thus,
like it or not on selection day which is a banner event for basketball,one doesn't know for certain who is in the field. Lets compare it the hockey
where it's a foregone conclusion except where teams will play. If football and basketball feel this is the best system,I'm not sure why hockey should differ.

[Beeeej]

Ok last word on this, at least for now, NCAA basketball might actually be a better example to use. It is similar in that there are automatic bids
to all D1 conferences and then the committee selects the remaining teams. They use many criteria but ultimately they are not locked into them. Thus,
like it or not on selection day which is a banner event for basketball,one doesn't know for certain who is in the field. Lets compare it the hockey
where it's a foregone conclusion except where teams will play. If football and basketball feel this is the best system,I'm not sure why hockey should differ.

Exactly because it's subjective and unknown. The committee in basketball not only gets to select the at-large teams based on their own criteria, there are no limits to those criteria and they don't have to be revealed. Particularly with only 60 teams in Div. I hockey, it seems unnecessarily opaque, and potentially cruel, to tell you that you have to perform at a certain level to make the NCAA tournament - only to be told at the end that you didn't make it, and nobody is interested in telling you why. This way, the teams know what they have to do - pending of course the math of other teams' results, but that's always the case. You either performed well enough relative to the other teams or you didn't. A foregone conclusion is a good thing.

NCAA Hockey feels this is the best system, and frankly I think basketball ought to follow - but they won't, because there are TV ratings and a lot more money involved.

[wakester2468]

I find this discussion very interesting and applies towards one's perspective even outside of sports.
Personally, i think statistics are a great tool to help make ones decisions. That being said I will never solely use them
eliminating factors statistics can't recognize. To take away the human element in life troubles me. I appreciate hearing
all sides of subject though.

[Dafatone]

I do think this year demonstrates a bit of an issue with pairwise that could use tweaking.  Keep in mind that pairwise these days is just RPI (unless you beat a team head to head AND in common games, so the RPI chart and the pairwise usually have one or two differences in total) and RPI is pretty much just a function of your record, your opponents' record, and your opponents' opponents' record.  With a little tweaking for quality wins, road/neutral/home wins, and a bump to make sure wins against scrubs don't actually hurt you.

Most of the ECAC has been okay this year.  Sucks is excelling (ew), and union, slu, and us have been hovering at or above the cutoff for much of the season.  Q isn't that far behind, Clarkson and Yale are competent, Dartmouth and Princeton are alright (and Princeton keeps beating top teams somehow).  The only issue is that Colgate is very bad and RPI and brown are hilariously terrible.  The entire conference is being dragged down because our last place teams, instead of being in the usual bottom 5-15 of college hockey, are in the very bottom few.  While I like RPI generally, maybe we need more of a bump for wins over bad teams.  Why should we suffer so much just because brown has a few fewer wins than usual?

KRACH often has less respect for us and for the ECAC than the pairwise does, but this year KRACH has us in 11th.  They also have st cloud in 16th.  And brown and RPI in the third to last and second to last spots in all of college hockey.

[upprdeck]

i thought that hockey was deciding the teams strictly by PWR now?

[Beeeej]

I find this discussion very interesting and applies towards one's perspective even outside of sports.
Personally, i think statistics are a great tool to help make ones decisions. That being said I will never solely use them
eliminating factors statistics can't recognize. To take away the human element in life troubles me. I appreciate hearing
all sides of subject though.

I guess I'm just not sure why you think Pairwise takes away the human element. The kids on the skates are still determining, through their performance, who goes to the tournament. Under your suggested framework, someone on the committee might be able to say, "Hey, Cornell never gets very far in the tournament, so let's not include them even though they finished in the 12 spot. Send #17 Boston College instead, we'll get better ratings that way." Does that really increase the quality of the selection process for you?